Yeah. No one eats a cup of peanut butter. They have a 32g (2tbsp) option, which is considered a standard serving (at least according to my peanut butter container)._________________"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman

Well, what I mean is people who eat 0 or near zero amounts of sugar shouldn't be factored in at all. I want to see what the median and modal averages are as well. I'm also pretty sure, going by cookie and candy recipes alone, that their is easily a significant amount of the population who eats several factors greater than what is presented.

but the figure is the _average_ for americans. so you have to include people who eat no sugar. they may eat weird, but they are still americans.

true, more statistics would give you a better picture. but it sounds like what you really want is to see the high numbers. just because some people are at the extremes, doesn't mean the average isn't meaningless. you know, bell-shaped curve and all?

it would also be interesting to see what the levels are like for people in other countries, and some estimates of what it was like say 50 or 100 years ago in the US. hard to say how different things are from just one point.

No it's still misleading. It's like doing a survey for 'average amount of time Americans spend driving', why would you include people who don't drive? Wht you would really want is 'Of those who drive, what is the average time they spend driving' so with sugar you'd want 'Of those Americans who consume more than zero (or nearly so) amounts of sugar, what is the average amount of sugar consumed'._________________...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.https://www.facebook.com/O.A.Drake/https://twitter.com/oadrake

Well, what I mean is people who eat 0 or near zero amounts of sugar shouldn't be factored in at all. I want to see what the median and modal averages are as well. I'm also pretty sure, going by cookie and candy recipes alone, that their is easily a significant amount of the population who eats several factors greater than what is presented.

but the figure is the _average_ for americans. so you have to include people who eat no sugar. they may eat weird, but they are still americans.

true, more statistics would give you a better picture. but it sounds like what you really want is to see the high numbers. just because some people are at the extremes, doesn't mean the average isn't meaningless. you know, bell-shaped curve and all?

it would also be interesting to see what the levels are like for people in other countries, and some estimates of what it was like say 50 or 100 years ago in the US. hard to say how different things are from just one point.

No it's still misleading. It's like doing a survey for 'average amount of time Americans spend driving', why would you include people who don't drive? Wht you would really want is 'Of those who drive, what is the average time they spend driving' so with sugar you'd want 'Of those Americans who consume more than zero (or nearly so) amounts of sugar, what is the average amount of sugar consumed'.

Except that if you want a good average you have to either exclude or include the extremes from both ends of the spectrum.

Cutting of one of the extremes but not the other doesn't give you the average so much as just a higher number to prove that all americans are lard-asses._________________

Let me put it another way: If we were discussing the ill-effects of red meat and we were trying to see how much red meat Americans consume on average, would it be more or less accurate to include vegetarians and other non-beef consumers in the survey?_________________...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.https://www.facebook.com/O.A.Drake/https://twitter.com/oadrake